Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Jo, 09 iul 20, 11:02:49, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [...] > > > > Sounds pretty risky. > > > > Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not > > going to use it to adjust partitions when required? > > You first have to copy stuff, then delete stuff, then shrink, then move > around. So at some point, you need double the space /usr is taking. > > LVM won't change that. > > Not a process I'd be comfortable rolling out for a distro to run > automatically on wildly different user's machines out there. No way. Did I imply it should be done automatically? That was definitely *not* my intention. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thu 09 Jul 2020 at 11:02:49 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > [...] > > > > Sounds pretty risky. > > > > Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not > > going to use it to adjust partitions when required? > > You first have to copy stuff, then delete stuff, then shrink, then move > around. So at some point, you need double the space /usr is taking. > > LVM won't change that. > > Not a process I'd be comfortable rolling out for a distro to run > automatically on wildly different user's machines out there. No way. Agreed. And implementing such a change as an upgrade, running on the system that's being "adjusted", seems misguided. A separate / and /usr only becomes an encumbrance when you boot the system: there's no problem while the system is up and running. So there's no reason to change it on a live system: wait until it's down for some reason. And read the Release Notes before a dist-upgrade! Cheers, David.
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: [...] > > Sounds pretty risky. > > Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not > going to use it to adjust partitions when required? You first have to copy stuff, then delete stuff, then shrink, then move around. So at some point, you need double the space /usr is taking. LVM won't change that. Not a process I'd be comfortable rolling out for a distro to run automatically on wildly different user's machines out there. No way. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Mi, 08 iul 20, 10:20:45, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:35:35AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its
> > flexibility in adjusting your partitions.
>
> But it won't make disappear a separate /usr partition "by magic".
>
> > What prevents you from merging '/' and '/usr'?
>
> This thread is talking about upgrades. Do you suggest an upgrade
> copying the contents of the /usr partition over to the / partition
> and dropping the separate /usr (perhaps recovering the space somehow)?
Or the other way around ('/usr' could be bigger than '/').
> Sounds pretty risky.
Sure. On the other hand, what is the point of using LVM if one is not
going to use it to adjust partitions when required?
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 18:07:05 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 8/7/20 3:35 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Mi, 08 iul 20, 02:35:09, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> >> On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this
> >>> on a modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous
> >>> amount of effort required to make
> >>> something work for which there isn't a good justification for
> >>> expending that effort. There should be no flamewar, if someone wants
> >>> the situation to change they simply need to be
> >>> the person who puts in all the work.
> >>
> >> Just doing dist-upgrade with a perfectly acceptable file system
> >> previously is no reason why it should break.
> >
> > Debian supports upgrading of most packages between releases.
> >
> > It provides no guarantees about hardware, partitioning schemes,
> > partition sizes, file systems, etc.
I'm not going to suggest that this is proof, but the Release Notes for
buster still carry the warning that one should make sure any /usr
partition has been remounted rw if necessary.
> > I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its
> > flexibility in adjusting your partitions. What prevents you from merging
> > '/' and '/usr'?
>
> Yes, that might be the best fix; but I didn't expect it to be necessary.
I haven't seen anything in the Release Notes suggesting that it is necessary.
> On 8/7/20 9:40 am, David Wright wrote:
> >> The mentioned intramfs config file has a strange note about it being
> >> "dangerous" to enable activate all logical volumes, why?!?!?!
> > A reference to the specific file would help. I see no mention here.
>
> Line 35 of /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 (see below) that
> mentions the risk:
>
> Also see the attached email that I sent to the Devuan DNG list for more
> reference.
>
> Below is the file I changed, added line numbered as 63.
>
> # cat -n /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2
> 1#!/bin/sh
> 2
> 3PREREQ="mdadm mdrun multipath"
> 4
> 5prereqs()
> 6{
> 7echo "$PREREQ"
> 8}
> 9
> 10case $1 in
> 11# get pre-requisites
> 12prereqs)
> 13prereqs
> 14exit 0
> 15;;
> 16esac
> 17
> 18if [ ! -e /sbin/lvm ]; then
> 19exit 0
> 20fi
> 21
> 22lvchange_activate() {
> 23lvm lvchange -aay -y --sysinit --ignoreskippedcluster
> "$@"
> 24}
> 25
> 26activate() {
> 27local dev="$1"
> 28
> 29# Make sure that we have a non-empty argument
> 30if [ -z "$dev" ]; then
> 31return 1
> 32fi
> 33
> 34case "$dev" in
> 35# Take care of lilo boot arg, risky activating of all vg
> 36fe[0-9]*)
> 37lvchange_activate
> 38exit 0
> 39;;
> 40# FIXME: check major
> 41/dev/root)
> 42lvchange_activate
> 43exit 0
> 44;;
> 45
> 46/dev/mapper/*)
> 47eval $(dmsetup splitname --nameprefixes
> --noheadings --rows "${dev#/dev/mapper/}")
> 48if [ "$DM_VG_NAME" ] && [ "$DM_LV_NAME" ]; then
> 49lvchange_activate
> "$DM_VG_NAME/$DM_LV_NAME"
> 50fi
> 51;;
> 52
> 53/dev/*/*)
> 54# Could be /dev/VG/LV; use lvs to check
> 55if lvm lvs -- "$dev" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
> 56lvchange_activate "$dev"
> 57fi
> 58;;
> 59esac
> 60}
> 61
> 62activate "$ROOT"
> 63activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr"
> 64activate "$resume"
> 65
> 66exit 0
>
> A line for /usr is in /etc/fstab using it's UUID ... same as root is
> referenced by UUID (both are in the same lvm2 volume group).
Well, this could be your problem. The jessie Release Notes say:
--✄
4.6.2 Changes to root and /usr filesystem mounting and checking
initramfs-tools will now also run fsck on the root filesystem before
mounting it. If the chosen init program is systemd and there is a
separate /usr filesystem, it will also fsck and mount /usr.
• If /usr is a separate
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 06:07:05PM +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote: A line for /usr is in /etc/fstab using it's UUID ... same as root is referenced by UUID (both are in the same lvm2 volume group). Why not just reference it by path?
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:35:35AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: [...] > I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its > flexibility in adjusting your partitions. But it won't make disappear a separate /usr partition "by magic". > What prevents you from merging '/' and '/usr'? This thread is talking about upgrades. Do you suggest an upgrade copying the contents of the /usr partition over to the / partition and dropping the separate /usr (perhaps recovering the space somehow)? Sounds pretty risky. FWIW, I still have a separate /usr on Buster (inherited from older installations). I'd have no problems with a merged /usr, but hey, I have no problems with leaving things as they are either. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 8/7/20 3:35 pm, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 08 iul 20, 02:35:09, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>> On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote:
>>>
>>> The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this
>>> on a modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous
>>> amount of effort required to make
>>> something work for which there isn't a good justification for
>>> expending that effort. There should be no flamewar, if someone wants
>>> the situation to change they simply need to be
>>> the person who puts in all the work.
>>
>> Just doing dist-upgrade with a perfectly acceptable file system
>> previously is no reason why it should break.
>
> Debian supports upgrading of most packages between releases.
>
> It provides no guarantees about hardware, partitioning schemes,
> partition sizes, file systems, etc.
>
> I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its
> flexibility in adjusting your partitions. What prevents you from merging
> '/' and '/usr'?
Yes, that might be the best fix; but I didn't expect it to be necessary.
On 8/7/20 9:40 am, David Wright wrote:
>> The mentioned intramfs config file has a strange note about it being
>> "dangerous" to enable activate all logical volumes, why?!?!?!
> A reference to the specific file would help. I see no mention here.
Line 35 of /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 (see below) that
mentions the risk:
Also see the attached email that I sent to the Devuan DNG list for more
reference.
Below is the file I changed, added line numbered as 63.
# cat -n /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2
1 #!/bin/sh
2
3 PREREQ="mdadm mdrun multipath"
4
5 prereqs()
6 {
7 echo "$PREREQ"
8 }
9
10 case $1 in
11 # get pre-requisites
12 prereqs)
13 prereqs
14 exit 0
15 ;;
16 esac
17
18 if [ ! -e /sbin/lvm ]; then
19 exit 0
20 fi
21
22 lvchange_activate() {
23 lvm lvchange -aay -y --sysinit --ignoreskippedcluster "$@"
24 }
25
26 activate() {
27 local dev="$1"
28
29 # Make sure that we have a non-empty argument
30 if [ -z "$dev" ]; then
31 return 1
32 fi
33
34 case "$dev" in
35 # Take care of lilo boot arg, risky activating of all vg
36 fe[0-9]*)
37 lvchange_activate
38 exit 0
39 ;;
40 # FIXME: check major
41 /dev/root)
42 lvchange_activate
43 exit 0
44 ;;
45
46 /dev/mapper/*)
47 eval $(dmsetup splitname --nameprefixes --noheadings
--rows "${dev#/dev/mapper/}")
48 if [ "$DM_VG_NAME" ] && [ "$DM_LV_NAME" ]; then
49 lvchange_activate "$DM_VG_NAME/$DM_LV_NAME"
50 fi
51 ;;
52
53 /dev/*/*)
54 # Could be /dev/VG/LV; use lvs to check
55 if lvm lvs -- "$dev" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
56 lvchange_activate "$dev"
57 fi
58 ;;
59 esac
60 }
61
62 activate "$ROOT"
63 activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr"
64 activate "$resume"
65
66 exit 0
A line for /usr is in /etc/fstab using it's UUID ... same as root is referenced
by UUID (both are in the same lvm2 volume group).
NB: If /usr wasn't being used with lvm2, then this problem might not have
surfaced and it probably would not have been a problem if the whole VG was
activated instead of just the
root file system because the UUID would have been "known or attainable" from
the logical volumes.
Kind Regards
AndrewM
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I had another "simple" server upgrade from Devuan Ascii to Devuan Beowulf,
these are the details and my work around for the problem.
There was nothing particularly special about this server, it doesn't use
encrypted file systems; it started out life as a Debian Wheezy installation,
migrated to Devuan Jessie and
later to Devuan Ascii and now Beowulf.
The server has /boot on it's own RAID1 partition with another RAID1 volume for
the rest of the disk being an LVM2 volume group having a number of logical
volumes for root, swap,
/usr/, /var/, /home/ and more.
After the dist-upgrade, it failed to boot and remained at the ministrants shell
environment after having complained about not being able to find the /usr file
system via it's UUID.
It had another error as well which was fixed by allocating 25% to RUNSIZE
variable (up from 10%) in /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf
- it was unable to find "rm" when running the boot up scripts
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Mi, 08 iul 20, 02:35:09, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > > > > The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this > > on a modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous > > amount of effort required to make > > something work for which there isn't a good justification for > > expending that effort. There should be no flamewar, if someone wants > > the situation to change they simply need to be > > the person who puts in all the work. > > Just doing dist-upgrade with a perfectly acceptable file system > previously is no reason why it should break. Debian supports upgrading of most packages between releases. It provides no guarantees about hardware, partitioning schemes, partition sizes, file systems, etc. I was under the impression that LVM is used in particular for its flexibility in adjusting your partitions. What prevents you from merging '/' and '/usr'? Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 02:35:09 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:45:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > >> On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > >>> On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > >>> > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > >>> >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > >>> > > >>> > [...] > >>> > > >>> >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is > >>> >>> essential. > >>> >> > >>> >> This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. > >>> >> Where do I tell it to mount /usr? > >>> > > >>> > No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or > >>> > journal. > >>> > >>> Still today, it fails to mount /usr if /usr is a logical volume using lvm2 > >>> > >>> I worked around that problem with an extra "activate" line in the > >>> following file: > >>> > >>> /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 > >>> > >>> activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr" > >>> > >>> I placed that after the line to activate ROOT > >>> > >>> So, still broken after all this time :( > >> > >> Is this link worth a read? > >> > >> https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ > >> > >> BTW the first line of the thread is "completely without starting any > >> flamewars:" > > > > The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this on a > > modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous amount of > > effort required to make > > something work for which there isn't a good justification for expending > > that effort. Agreed, but I think both the OP and the reviver are discussing legacy-partitioned systems. AFAIK these have remained upgradable on stable from wheezy¹ through to buster—or are you saying that that's not true? (IDK: all my primary (buster) systems are /usr-merged too, being installed afresh.) > > There should be no flamewar, if someone wants the situation to change they > > simply need to be > > the person who puts in all the work. The reason I included that line was that the page includes: "It isn't systemd's fault. systemd mostly works fine with /usr on a separate file system that is not pre-mounted at boot." That had been true for years before this 2014 thread started. It would be easy to think that the subject line was suggesting this is not the case, and for the thread to pick up flames. That's all. > Just doing dist-upgrade with a perfectly acceptable file system previously is > no reason why it should break. Quite right. You read the Release Notes and follow their advice at each upgrade. > The mentioned intramfs config file has a strange note about it being > "dangerous" to enable activate all logical volumes, why?!?!?! A reference to the specific file would help. I see no mention here. > Debian/Devuan are Linux distros that allow for continuous upgrading without > re-installing; the fact that MANY systems have previously separated root and > /usr and, effectively > "times have changed" really isn't an acceptable answer. True; I would expect at least a migration path for each distribution. > Even systemd doesn't seem to think it should be a problem for those that > choose to use systemd. I'm not clear what the significance of "Even …" is. You are presumably not running systemd, in view of this: > >>> This is a system now running Devuan Beowulf btw, but it gets most of it's > >>> packages directly from Debian repos. So what steps did you take since, say, wheezy¹ to compensate for the changes that have been come about? ¹ IIRC booting wheezy did not require anything from /usr until the scripts in /etc/init.d/ had mounted /usr as per /etc/fstab. Cheers, David.
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Hi, On 8/7/20 2:11 am, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:45:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote: >> On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: >>> On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: >>> > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: >>> >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: >>> > >>> > [...] >>> > >>> >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is >>> >>> essential. >>> >> >>> >> This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. >>> >> Where do I tell it to mount /usr? >>> > >>> > No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or >>> > journal. >>> >>> Still today, it fails to mount /usr if /usr is a logical volume using lvm2 >>> >>> I worked around that problem with an extra "activate" line in the following >>> file: >>> >>> /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 >>> >>> activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr" >>> >>> I placed that after the line to activate ROOT >>> >>> So, still broken after all this time :( >> >> Is this link worth a read? >> >> https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ >> >> BTW the first line of the thread is "completely without starting any >> flamewars:" > > The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this on a > modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous amount of > effort required to make > something work for which there isn't a good justification for expending that > effort. There should be no flamewar, if someone wants the situation to change > they simply need to be > the person who puts in all the work. Just doing dist-upgrade with a perfectly acceptable file system previously is no reason why it should break. The mentioned intramfs config file has a strange note about it being "dangerous" to enable activate all logical volumes, why?!?!?! Debian/Devuan are Linux distros that allow for continuous upgrading without re-installing; the fact that MANY systems have previously separated root and /usr and, effectively "times have changed" really isn't an acceptable answer. Even systemd doesn't seem to think it should be a problem for those that choose to use systemd. A. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:45:17AM -0500, David Wright wrote: On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > [...] > >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is >>> essential. >> >> This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. >> Where do I tell it to mount /usr? > > No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or > journal. Still today, it fails to mount /usr if /usr is a logical volume using lvm2 I worked around that problem with an extra "activate" line in the following file: /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr" I placed that after the line to activate ROOT So, still broken after all this time :( Is this link worth a read? https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ BTW the first line of the thread is "completely without starting any flamewars:" The short answer is that there simply isn't a good reason to do this on a modern system, and there is no volunteer to donate the enormous amount of effort required to make something work for which there isn't a good justification for expending that effort. There should be no flamewar, if someone wants the situation to change they simply need to be the person who puts in all the work.
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Wed 08 Jul 2020 at 00:41:12 (+1000), Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is > >>> essential. > >> > >> This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. > >> Where do I tell it to mount /usr? > > > > No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or > > journal. > > Still today, it fails to mount /usr if /usr is a logical volume using lvm2 > > I worked around that problem with an extra "activate" line in the following > file: > >/usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 > >activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr" > > I placed that after the line to activate ROOT > > So, still broken after all this time :( Is this link worth a read? https://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ BTW the first line of the thread is "completely without starting any flamewars:" Cheers, David.
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 2/11/14 8:58 am, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * David Baron [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: > >> On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > [...] > >>> It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is >>> essential. >> >> This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. >> Where do I tell it to mount /usr? > > No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or > journal. Still today, it fails to mount /usr if /usr is a logical volume using lvm2 I worked around that problem with an extra "activate" line in the following file: /usr/share/initramfs-tools/scripts/local-top/lvm2 activate "/dev/mapper/vg0-usr" I placed that after the line to activate ROOT So, still broken after all this time :( # dpkg-query -l |grep initramfs ii initramfs-tools0.133+deb10u1 all generic modular initramfs generator (automation) ii initramfs-tools-core 0.133+deb10u1 all generic modular initramfs generator (core tools) ii libklibc:amd64 2.0.6-1 amd64minimal libc subset for use with initramfs # aptitude show initramfs-tools initramfs-tools-core Wed 8 Jul 00:40:15 AEST 2020 -- show initramfs-tools initramfs-tools-core Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.133+deb10u1 State: installed Automatically installed: no Multi-Arch: foreign Priority: optional Section: utils Maintainer: Debian kernel team Architecture: all Uncompressed Size: 114 k Depends: initramfs-tools-core (= 0.133+deb10u1), linux-base Suggests: bash-completion Conflicts: linux-initramfs-tool, usplash (< 0.5.50) Breaks: e2fsprogs (< 1.42.13), initscripts (< 2.88dsf-59.3~), upstart Provides: linux-initramfs-tool Description: generic modular initramfs generator (automation) Tags: admin::boot, admin::filesystem, admin::install, admin::kernel, devel::lang:c, devel::library, implemented-in::c, implemented-in::shell, interface::commandline, role::devel-lib, role::program, scope::application, scope::utility, works-with::archive Package: initramfs-tools-core Version: 0.133+deb10u1 New: yes State: installed Automatically installed: yes Multi-Arch: foreign Priority: optional Section: utils Maintainer: Debian kernel team Architecture: all Uncompressed Size: 213 k Depends: klibc-utils (>= 2.0.4-8~), cpio (>= 2.12), kmod, udev, coreutils (>= 8.24), e2fsprogs Recommends: busybox (>= 1:1.22.0-17~) | busybox-static (>= 1:1.22.0-17~), pigz Suggests: bash-completion Breaks: busybox (< 1:1.22.0-17~), busybox-static (< 1:1.22.0-17~), initramfs-tools (< 0.121~) Replaces: initramfs-tools (< 0.121~) Description: generic modular initramfs generator (core tools) This is a system now running Devuan Beowulf btw, but it gets most of it's packages directly from Debian repos. A. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
* David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il [2014-11-02 00:28 +0200]: On Saturday 01 November 2014 22:58:05 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: * David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is essential. This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. Where do I tell it to mount /usr? No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or journal. Elimar New to .118 version? If I upgrade to that, the Failed to remount message will no longer happen? Go and find it out. Elimar -- Learned men are the cisterns of knowledge, not the fountainheads ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141102092626.gc1...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: * David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il [2014-10-31 10:22 +0200]: On Thursday 30 October 2014 19:46:26 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] To mount /usr at boottime you need to boot with an initramfs. Therefor you need at least ii initramfs-tools 0.118 ii util-linux 2.25.2-2 which are available in sid. I don't know wheather this works on an encrypted /usr, but at the end it works on sysvinit, upstart and systemd. Check the BTS for initramfs-tools and util-linux. Elimar Cool. I have not yet upgraded to 0.118 because of serious bugs. How might I set it up to mount /usr at boot time? Just upgrade to sid. Didn't found the way to jessie yet because of some RC bugs. I am on Sid. This was upgraded from stable install, however. (Alternatively: Used to be possible to demand certain modules be included in the initrd. Initramfs now defaults to all/most. I used to use dep. Were some item in /usr... be actually needed at boot, could that be specified for inclusion to initramfs?) It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is essential. This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. Where do I tell it to mount /usr? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2125337.MWdI8tOeKl@dovidhalevi
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
* David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is essential. This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. Where do I tell it to mount /usr? No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or journal. Elimar -- Alles was viel bedacht wird ist bedenklich!;-) Friedrich Nietzsche -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141101215805.gb1...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Saturday 01 November 2014 22:58:05 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: * David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il [2014-11-01 19:13 +0200]: On Friday 31 October 2014 13:08:27 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is essential. This is what the install gave me. I have not touched it. Where do I tell it to mount /usr? No need to. initramfs-tools does it by default. Check dmesg or journal. Elimar New to .118 version? If I upgrade to that, the Failed to remount message will no longer happen? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3824080.Y03NvCI5ZO@dovidhalevi
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thursday 30 October 2014 19:46:26 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: * Hans hans.ullr...@loop.de [2014-10-30 10:27 +0100]: Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! To mount /usr at boottime you need to boot with an initramfs. Therefor you need at least ii initramfs-tools 0.118 ii util-linux 2.25.2-2 which are available in sid. I don't know wheather this works on an encrypted /usr, but at the end it works on sysvinit, upstart and systemd. Check the BTS for initramfs-tools and util-linux. Elimar Cool. I have not yet upgraded to 0.118 because of serious bugs. How might I set it up to mount /usr at boot time? (Alternatively: Used to be possible to demand certain modules be included in the initrd. Initramfs now defaults to all/most. I used to use dep. Were some item in /usr... be actually needed at boot, could that be specified for inclusion to initramfs?) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3272561.cPzdJO1MBP@dovidhalevi
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
* David Baron d_ba...@012.net.il [2014-10-31 10:22 +0200]: On Thursday 30 October 2014 19:46:26 Elimar Riesebieter wrote: [...] To mount /usr at boottime you need to boot with an initramfs. Therefor you need at least ii initramfs-tools 0.118 ii util-linux 2.25.2-2 which are available in sid. I don't know wheather this works on an encrypted /usr, but at the end it works on sysvinit, upstart and systemd. Check the BTS for initramfs-tools and util-linux. Elimar Cool. I have not yet upgraded to 0.118 because of serious bugs. How might I set it up to mount /usr at boot time? Just upgrade to sid. Didn't found the way to jessie yet because of some RC bugs. (Alternatively: Used to be possible to demand certain modules be included in the initrd. Initramfs now defaults to all/most. I used to use dep. Were some item in /usr... be actually needed at boot, could that be specified for inclusion to initramfs?) It's your decision. MODULES=most should be okay. BUSYBOX=y is essential. Elimar -- We all know Linux is great... it does infinite loops in 5 seconds. -Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141031120827.gb1...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de
Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! For a new installation it might be ok, to put /usr on the root partition, but I guess, there are a lot of systems in the world running a partition profile like mine. Besides of the mentioned problem systemd is running well. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. So I ask the developers hereby, maybe it wil be possible to do that. Again, I do not want to start any flamewars! IMO each user should decide for himself, what he wants to use. I want to use systemd, and I just intend with this message to improve systemd. Thank you very much for reading this and any help. Best regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2169479.eyGDWmysPc@protheus7
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Hello Hans! Am Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014, 10:27:50 schrieb Hans: Dear maintainers, You only reach the systemd maintainers by pure luck this way. I know one is subscribed to debian-user-german, I am not sure about debian-user. I suggest you use BTS or dig for a debian systemd maintainers mailinglist or contact mail address. And thanks for the friendly tone in your mail. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/7183433.aMuxTiWbfE@merkaba
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Hans wrote: Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! For a new installation it might be ok, to put /usr on the root partition, but I guess, there are a lot of systems in the world running a partition profile like mine. Besides of the mentioned problem systemd is running well. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. I don't think this is possible because, for complex setups, you run into a chicken-and-egg system. People are getting more and more creative with where they put data and are wanting that data to become available at boot. In the good old days, your file systems were on a local disk and looking at /dev/hd* would be enough to find everything you wanted. Then along came network file systems, and now you need the network to be up before you can mount the file system. Then there are network block devices (NBD, iSCSI etc), which you probably want to fsck before you mount. There there are device-mappers (RAID, LVM etc) whereby those network block devices might be agglomerated into a larger device (maybe with local devices, maybe with other hosts which are also still booting). And so on and so on. Systemd, Upstart and other event-based init systems try to sidestep most of this mess by not explicitly saying Mount local filesystems, then bring up the network, then mount network filesystems, but rather, they start some tasks (such as 'mount all' and 'start network') and as pieces of the puzzle become available, this allows other tasks to continue. So, it's not *really* about This one arbitrary file system must be on your root filesystem but rather All the programs needed to get any system booted (because the design should accommodate as many people as possible), should be available in a single place. So I ask the developers hereby, maybe it wil be possible to do that. Again, I do not want to start any flamewars! IMO each user should decide for himself, what he wants to use. I want to use systemd, and I just intend with this message to improve systemd. Thank you very much for reading this and any help. Best regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2169479.eyGDWmysPc@protheus7 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 10/30/2014 10:27 AM, Hans wrote: Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! For a new installation it might be ok, to put /usr on the root partition, but I guess, there are a lot of systems in the world running a partition profile like mine. Besides of the mentioned problem systemd is running well. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. So I ask the developers hereby, maybe it wil be possible to do that. Again, I do not want to start any flamewars! IMO each user should decide for himself, what he wants to use. I want to use systemd, and I just intend with this message to improve systemd. Thank you very much for reading this and any help. Best regards Hans Hi Hans, have a look on this link: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ Best, Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/545213df.30...@biotec.tu-dresden.de
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thursday 30 October 2014 10:27:50 Hans wrote: Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! For a new installation it might be ok, to put /usr on the root partition, but I guess, there are a lot of systems in the world running a partition profile like mine. Besides of the mentioned problem systemd is running well. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. So I ask the developers hereby, maybe it wil be possible to do that. Again, I do not want to start any flamewars! IMO each user should decide for himself, what he wants to use. I want to use systemd, and I just intend with this message to improve systemd. Thank you very much for reading this and any help. Best regards Hans I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the installer, but ...) I may move mine soon once I resolve some disk hardware issues but I should not have to do this just to get rid of a superfluous fail message and switch to verbose mode. Aside from this issue, I am running systemd just fine! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/35371725.9D9z6tCyhZ@dovidhalevi
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Hi Hans, have a look on this link: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken/ Best, Alex Yes, yes, I know that. I alreadfy filed a bugreport some weeks ago. However, it is not really a bug, but more a failure by design, I think. Hope, that the maintainers will change that. Best Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1852604.5PbWx4n4rC@protheus7
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the installer, but ...) I may move mine soon once I resolve some disk hardware issues but I should not have to do this just to get rid of a superfluous fail message and switch to verbose mode. Aside from this issue, I am running systemd just fine! FULL ACK! Systemd is running fine on all my systems, too. Except the thing I already mentioned. I think, the maintainers do not expect, repartitioning of all running systems, due to the /usr problem. There are obviously better ways, I think. However, jessie is not far away from changing to stable, but that particular bug is IMO a big jessie-stopper. Best Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1511573.W2IJmAmTnx@protheus7
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 10/30/14, Hans hans.ullr...@loop.de wrote: I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the installer, but ...) I may move mine soon once I resolve some disk hardware issues but I should not have to do this just to get rid of a superfluous fail message and switch to verbose mode. Aside from this issue, I am running systemd just fine! FULL ACK! Systemd is running fine on all my systems, too. Except the thing I already mentioned. I think, the maintainers do not expect, repartitioning of all running systems, due to the /usr problem. There are obviously better ways, I think. However, jessie is not far away from changing to stable, but that particular bug is IMO a big jessie-stopper. My (occasionally) unhumble opinion is this sounds like a notable #FAIL before the system ever even gets its engine running. Makes one wonder what else might silently glitch just beyond sight or log files and as a direct result of this. Sounds like this creates a possibility for highly important system wide [symlinks] to /usr and similarly affected directories to miss making their connections at a critical moment. Is there some kind of testing that could be done to extensively... well... test that aspect? Isn't systemd where someone was upset about remarkably long boot times early on in these recent discussions? Maybe at least one part of their issue could be traced to this... or not. :) Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * Do not pass GO, do not collect $200 * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAO1P-kB0QnWXDE4kC2KCE1+N=xpebbw06hdio-0k-r20nnm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Le Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:27:50 +0100, Hans hans.ullr...@loop.de a écrit : Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! For a new installation it might be ok, to put /usr on the root partition, but I guess, there are a lot of systems in the world running a partition profile like mine. Besides of the mentioned problem systemd is running well. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. So I ask the developers hereby, maybe it wil be possible to do that. I bet you are running jessie/testing? This issue should be fixed in initramfs-tools = 0.117 that is currently in unstable (and unfortunately blocked by some RC bugs). The newer version include the following change: * Mount /usr if present in the /etc/fstab on the mounted rootfs (Closes: #652459) I personally really hope this change will make it into jessie. Cheers, Laurent Bigonville -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030145536.601a6...@soldur.bigon.be
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Hans wrote: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. If you want this to work, you need to ensure that /usr is mounted by the initramfs. That means moving the cryptsetup prompting into the initramfs if it isn't there already. I do not know to what extent the Debian tools for building an initramfs, or the cryptsetup stuff, will help you to get this set up right. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. Not really, since systemd is the first thing started by the kernel, with one exception: work done in the initramfs. The point of the initramfs is to ensure that whatever the kernel needs to mount the root filesystem is available to it, so that can be done prior to starting init. If you are splitting the root partition up by having a separate /usr, then the initramfs needs to ensure /usr is available too. It might be possible to enhance the cryptsetup/mkinitramfs stuff in Debian to make this easier. Thanks, -- Jonathan Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030141404.ga14...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 30/10/14 11:35, David Baron wrote: I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the installer, but ) I may move mine soon once I resolve some disk hardware issues but I should not have to do this just to get rid of a superfluous fail message and switch to verbose mode. When I installed Squeeze on a new PC three years ago I blindly followed the installer's partitioning advice since I thought the Debian developers would certainly know better than me. One Debian version later I found out that my root partition had probably been created much too small because it couldn't even hold two different kernels. Another Debian version later, a young man, Mr. Poettering, tells the Debian developers that the partitioning scheme they always recommended was broken. I guess I can now look forward to learning whether an upgrade to Jessie - should I ever attempt one and not go back to Slackware or try another OS out of desperation - will fail due to lack of disk space or lack of compatibility with existing partitioning schemes. OMG. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m2tij4$is6$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thursday 30 October 2014 15:35:53 Peter Nieman wrote: On 30/10/14 11:35, David Baron wrote: I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the installer, but ) I may move mine soon once I resolve some disk hardware issues but I should not have to do this just to get rid of a superfluous fail message and switch to verbose mode. When I installed Squeeze on a new PC three years ago I blindly followed the installer's partitioning advice since I thought the Debian developers would certainly know better than me. One Debian version later I found out that my root partition had probably been created much too small because it couldn't even hold two different kernels. Another Debian version later, a young man, Mr. Poettering, tells the Debian developers that the partitioning scheme they always recommended was broken. I guess I can now look forward to learning whether an upgrade to Jessie - should I ever attempt one and not go back to Slackware or try another OS out of desperation - will fail due to lack of disk space or lack of compatibility with existing partitioning schemes. OMG. I already moved my / partition once to be able to have more than one kernel. I have opt bound to a folder on my huge home. I have usr/local similarly bound because usr is also on the small side. /var is too small as well but so far operational. So that partitioning scheme is (I do not use such language). So let's have newer installers do it right, also with /usr. Meanwhile I need to do something about the mess the installer gave me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1964299.1e0Vz7CeNJ@dovidhalevi
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 10/30/2014 10:14 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote: Hi, On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:50AM +0100, Hans wrote: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. If you want this to work, you need to ensure that /usr is mounted by the initramfs. That means moving the cryptsetup prompting into the initramfs if it isn't there already. I do not know to what extent the Debian tools for building an initramfs, or the cryptsetup stuff, will help you to get this set up right. I thought about this problem. Might it be possible, to change systemd in that way, that it will start after all partitions are mounted? I know, it must be done in the source code, but as I am no coder, I cannot do it myself. Not really, since systemd is the first thing started by the kernel, with one exception: work done in the initramfs. The point of the initramfs is to ensure that whatever the kernel needs to mount the root filesystem is available to it, so that can be done prior to starting init. If you are splitting the root partition up by having a separate /usr, then the initramfs needs to ensure /usr is available too. It might be possible to enhance the cryptsetup/mkinitramfs stuff in Debian to make this easier. I'm still learning about this. Can you help me make sense of the following link, which seems to be saying the problem was solved long ago? http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2011-March/001499.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54525ef6.3060...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
Le 30.10.2014 15:35, Peter Nieman a écrit : On 30/10/14 11:35, David Baron wrote: I think this problem should be resolved. I know the newer desirable keeping of /usr on /. However, I would bet 99% of existing multi-partition Debian installations have usr on a separate partition. Historically and even recent installations (not that I like the partitioning done by the installer, but ) I may move mine soon once I resolve some disk hardware issues but I should not have to do this just to get rid of a superfluous fail message and switch to verbose mode. When I installed Squeeze on a new PC three years ago I blindly followed the installer's partitioning advice since I thought the Debian developers would certainly know better than me. One Debian version later I found out that my root partition had probably been created much too small because it couldn't even hold two different kernels. Another Debian version later, a young man, Mr. Poettering, tells the Debian developers that the partitioning scheme they always recommended was broken. I guess I can now look forward to learning whether an upgrade to Jessie - should I ever attempt one and not go back to Slackware or try another OS out of desperation - will fail due to lack of disk space or lack of compatibility with existing partitioning schemes. OMG. Hum... I think I always have seen the installer on all in one partition (beginners)? If you have selected this one, then, you should not have problems because of stuff not mounted. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/75f4331ae92b0f0d9d9a15cc98f69...@neutralite.org
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On 30/10/14 17:48, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Hum... I think I always have seen the installer on all in one partition (beginners)? If you have selected this one, then, you should not have problems because of stuff not mounted. I guess you're right that there was an option to have everything in one partition. Frankly, I don't remember what the installer menu in Squeeze looked like. But anyway, what's the meaning of all in one partition (beginners)? I wasn't a beginner at that time, so maybe I thought that this option doesn't apply to me. ;-) A couple of years ago the advice given by most experts in newsgroups, Linux books etc. was to *not* put everything in one partition, and the installer definitely didn't recommend the opposite or even warn against it. And the partition sizes suggested by the installer were wrong. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/m2u0bo$ciu$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
* Hans hans.ullr...@loop.de [2014-10-30 10:27 +0100]: Dear maintainers, completely without starting any flamewars: I am using systemd and I have /usr mounted on a separate partition as well as /var, /home, /boot and /. Additionally /usr, /var and /home are luks encrypted. Due to this profile, I get a lot of annoying errors, as systemd does not find /usr when it is started, because it produces an error and then switches to verbose mode. This is very annoying! To mount /usr at boottime you need to boot with an initramfs. Therefor you need at least ii initramfs-tools 0.118 ii util-linux 2.25.2-2 which are available in sid. I don't know wheather this works on an encrypted /usr, but at the end it works on sysvinit, upstart and systemd. Check the BTS for initramfs-tools and util-linux. Elimar -- .~. /V\ L I N U X /( )\ Phear the Penguin ^^-^^ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030184626.gb1...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de
Re: Suggestion for systemd and /usr on seperate partition
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:30:54 +0100 Peter Nieman gmane-a...@t-online.de wrote: On 30/10/14 17:48, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Hum... I think I always have seen the installer on all in one partition (beginners)? If you have selected this one, then, you should not have problems because of stuff not mounted. I guess you're right that there was an option to have everything in one partition. Frankly, I don't remember what the installer menu in Squeeze looked like. But anyway, what's the meaning of all in one partition (beginners)? I wasn't a beginner at that time, so maybe I thought that this option doesn't apply to me. ;-) A couple of years ago the advice given by most experts in newsgroups, Linux books etc. was to *not* put everything in one partition, and the installer definitely didn't recommend the opposite or even warn against it. You learn as you go. The general rule of thumb is that there's not much to be gained on a workstation by using multiple partitions, though some people maintain that a swap partition is a little better than a swap file. I believe the 'all-in-one' installer option still uses a separate swap partition. On a server, running unattended most of the time, you really don't want a problem which generates large amounts of /var stuff to shut down the computer, so at least /var ought to be separate. There was once a theory that /usr would be read-only and contain user applications, possibly for multiple users on a networked system. In reality, a lot of system stuff seems to have spilled over into /usr, and even /bin and /sbin are supposed to be symlinked from it, so it needs to be available during boot. I wasn't able recently to find any instructions for mounting it during boot, so the easy way is to keep it in /. And the partition sizes suggested by the installer were wrong. Funny, that. Though not nearly as funny as with Windows, where the system partition is *always* underspecified, a full system partition means a reinstall, and log files are kept under the same top-level directory as library binaries... Yes, a few hundred megs were always OK for / if /usr and /var were separate, but now the modules for a single kernel are well over 100MB, and with Linux it's always a good idea to keep a spare kernel around. /lib, where the modules live, absolutely has to be available at boot. As to /home, it's useful to keep that separate if you expect to reinstall, but in any case, /home will be regularly backed up somewhere offline, won't it? -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141030193002.1b233...@jresid.jretrading.com
